As IF Times

link Protesters, police face off in Montreal | CTV Calgary.

The charade continues.  By now, media reports of the ‘students’ protesting a whopping increase in provincial tuition  have been broadcast worldwide.  Parents of students attending U.S. colleges must be wondering what they’re missing in the story.  According to the media, the broken windows, vandalized businesses and  fighting with police stems from a plan by the provincial government to raise tuition by a  monstrous amount ….a whopping $325 per year increase!

Cue crickets.

That is not a typo.  In a time where a cup of coffee costs almost 4 bucks and a pair of chi chi jeans can run over $300, apparently these kids are taking to the streets to protest a fee increase that probably wouldn’t cover their cost of beer over a two week term.

At first, we think the issue is about entitlements, but that’s a smokescreen.  We already know that an entitlement mentality has invaded our culture like E. Coli at an all-you-can eat sushi bar.  Ostensibly, the whole point of getting an education is to become a productive member of society, to get gainfully employed, build a life and pay taxes.  Ironically, taxpayers are the ones footing the bill for the destruction to public property and extra policing.  But, not having finished their schooling, these darlings haven’t learned that yet.  The real issue here is the on-going characterization of the protesters as innocent activist kids just expressing themselves.

To keep labelling these professional miscreants as ‘students’ does a massive disservice to the general public that would believe the narrative.  It’s hard to get the public aroused against the uprising if people think that they are just crazy kids acting up.  Besides, they are protesting the wrong party.  Why don’t they demonstrate against the professors who undoubtedly will get increased salaries and benefits as a result of tuition hikes?  Why don’t they demand that they teach for free?  Incidentally, it’s curious at all that the cost of education has risen so steeply over the years.  We are living in a time where the amount of  information and knowledge available as well as access to that information has never been greater than at any time in history.  It’s counter-intuitive to have the costs go higher given more supply.  In theory, education should be like automobiles.  They make them better and cheaper as the years go by.  But that’s for another article.  For a discussion of this notion, see  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577293430981335366.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_careerjournal

For the time being, let’s not be bamboozled by the media to believe that the rioting and destruction in Montreal is all about kids.  As we’ve all seen from the Occupy Wall Street charade over the past few months, these are not organic movements however much they may be characterized that way.  It takes a lot of money to organize and maintain professional mobs.   Someone should figure out who is funding these useful idiots.  It can’t be the kids.  They can’t afford the tuition increase.

link Washington sues Florida city over firefighter tests | Reuters.

Broad principles are at stake here.  To qualify for most jobs these days, it’s pretty well expected that there should be some barrier to entry, at least to filter out the most obviously unqualified people from a given position.  If that were not the case, I might decide to go into the brain surgery business because I happen to be good with my hands.  The guys who went to medical school for 10 years may not be so happy about that, but there’s a lot to be said for on the job experience.

Of course, we can’t equate firefighting with brain surgery.  Firefighting is basically a binary job task: if there’s a fire, put it out, if not, play cards or clean the trucks.  However, they still have to at least be able to read street signs and a maybe a road map.  Assuming that someone can pass the physical requirements, there really shouldn’t be too much in the way of obstacles to qualify as a firefighter.  It’s doubtful that a homeowner whose house was ablaze would care a scintilla about someone’s GPA when the firetruck pulls up.  But they do expect some level of competence.  If, as a group, certain people are unable to pass these requirements is it really logical to make the exams easier to pass?  By extrapolation, why have thresholds of competence for anyone?

It’s unclear how these written tests in Florida were administered, but logically, if they were written simultaneously and blacks as a group all failed to qualify, that’s one thing.  If the testers knew the candidates were black before giving out the tests, that’s another.  Presumably, as in school, the tests are scored on the results, not on the pictures.

One of the basic tenets of civilization is that in order to ‘get ahead’ in life, it’s necessary to get a good education in order to qualify for a good job.  As a matter of fact, millions of students submerge themselves in debt in order to realize that dream of a ‘better life’.  If the standards for any given job were waived just because most people couldn’t pass the entry requirements, there is little point in going to school.  People may as well demand to be hired for a position of their liking and get the media on board to support their cause.   While this may significantly reduce the hordes of people naively attending school, it does make the process of selecting a brain surgeon for example, iffier.

Although tenuous these days, there is still a correlation between between effort and results.  Most people have some kind of goal that they aspire to and they realize that in order to achieve those goals requires some kind of sacrifice entailing either mental or physical preparation.  Some will make the sacrifice, most won’t.  It is entirely illogical to expect that in any given employment role that the demographics of that role should mirror the constituency of the population at large.  In a recent ‘news’ story, the Obama administration was embarrassed by the revelation that there were very few minority staffers and advisers in his team.  I’m not sure if that’s true, but it does create a problem of optics for an administration that plays the race card so often, it’s the only card in the deck.

Again, firefighting is not brain surgery.  It’s hard to imagine that any able bodied person wouldn’t qualify to drag a hose around or follow orders.  But if the most nominal of suitability exams can’t be passed by a candidate, perhaps they should be looking elsewhere for a career, something that doesn’t require simple ability to process reason and logic and for which there are no competency tests.   Politics for example.